... A FORUM TO STIMULATE DEBATE ... ... JUST ADD A COMMENT AT ANY ENTRY BELOW... ... FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF TOWN AND VALLEY ...

Friday 23 March 2018

Knowle relocation project: objecting to "the demolition of the council’s current headquarters to make way for x homes, a scheme that will help fund the building of a new HQ...... The council claims that the development would not be viable with the provision of affordable housing."

The fiasco over Northampton's new HQ is well-known:
Northamptonshire County Council to sell new £53m HQ - BBC News

As covered by this blog:
Futures Forum: Knowle relocation project: and the Northamptonshire relocation project > "New council HQ could save taxpayers £xm in x years authority claims"
Futures Forum: Knowle relocation project: moving into a 'modern, flexible working environment to save on running costs' - which a cash-strapped council then has to sell
Futures Forum: Knowle relocation project: "a cash-strapped local authority is considering selling its new headquarters"

The East Devon Watch blog notes the latest such mess happening elsewhere: 

ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER COUNCIL HQ SALE MESS

23 March 2018

Owl says: what is it about councils and HQ relocation that seems it ALWAYS goes pear shaped!!!

"Active Urban Property Group (AUPG) wants to build 100 homes at Suffolk Coastal District Council’s (SCDC) former Melton Hill offices in Woodbridge, sparking residents opposition..."


Another day, another council HQ sale mess | East Devon Watch
Calls for Suffolk Coastal District Council's Melton Hill headquarters sale to be started over | Latest Suffolk and Essex News - East Anglian Daily Times

Meanwhile, a simple on-line search for other councils having issues with their 'relocation project' provides quite a few examples:
Middlesbrough Council headquarters 'not fit for purpose' - BBC News
Abandoned Ashington council HQ site could house cinema, restaurants and shops - Chronicle Live

This is another expensive example: 

The £17m vision for Northumberland County Hall is unveiled - which you'll be paying for

18 JAN 2018

Northumberland County Council has unveiled plans to spend £17million on refurbishing its outdated headquarters. County Hall in Morpeth , which was built in 1981, is set to have its interior updated to give it a new lease of life. 

And once the work is complete, an entire wing of the building is to be rented out in the hope of generating income for the council.

The £17m vision for Northumberland County Hall is unveiled - which you'll be paying for - Chronicle Live
Northumberland County Council unveils £17m headquarters update - BBC News

Specifically, what's been happening in Warwickshire has clear parallels with what's been happening in East Devon: 

Objections to housing plans at council headquarters

27th December 2017

WARWICK District Council is facing criticism after it emerged that two of its own house building schemes do not include any affordable housing. Warwick and Leamington’s MP Matt Western is among the chief objectors to the demolition of the council’s current headquarters to make way for 170 homes, a scheme that will help fund the building of a new HQ.

The council claims that neither development would be viable with the provision of affordable housing. Both applications are recommended for approval at a meeting next week. The council’s own policy states that developments of more than 11 homes must include 40 per cent of housing that will be made available for rent or shared ownership to people on its housing register. But it has made attempts to use a loophole in that policy that offers exemptions if developers can prove that by doing do would make their schemes unviable.


In documents that will be presented to the district council’s own planning said that the development of Riverside House in Leamington would subsidise new council offices and a new multi-storey car park on the Covent Garden site further into the town centre, adding that without that income the scheme would be unviable. Although a separate report that backs up that claim will not be published due to ‘commercial sensitivity’.

No comments: